Freitag, 5. Oktober 2012

Some businesses are doing the right thing,
but others remain powerful blockers of a green economy. That is why we need stringent
regulationnow more than ever and why
progressive businesses need to stand up to their laggard colleagues.

This is unedited version of an article that was published by Europe´s World.

In the wake of the epic
failure of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development - Rio+20 –
many are asking whether corporations, rather than governments, will be the true
agents of change going forward. Will corporations deliver our children the
future that governments failed to agree on in the Polluter´s Charter they
adopted and called – seemingly without any sense of irony – „The Future We Want“?

It is certainly the case that
corporations rule our world today. Many are bigger than entire nations – or
many nations combined. Of the world’s 100 largest economic entities in 2009, 44
were corporations,if you compare revenues to GDP. And, indeed, some are starting
to put that power to good use. Google is investing heavily in renewable energy;
Nike and H&M are eliminating toxic chemicals from their supply chains;
supermarket giant Sainsbury‘s is sourcing sustainable seafood and backing marine reserves, and a growing number of corporations including
Unilever and Nestle are refusing to buy from Asia Pulp and Paper (APP) as long
as it continues to clear rainforests and destroy peatlands in Indonesia.

When the first Rio Earth
Summit was convened in 1992, the renewable energy industry, which has seen a
tremendous breakthrough in the last decade, didn’t have a strong presence at UN
conferences. Now they do. Twenty years ago, we didn’t have over 100 major
corporations in the EU calling for a stronger, binding climate target for
themselves, publicly challenging the official position of their main business
federation, BusinessEurope. Now, we
do, with corporate giants such as Danone, Philips and Allianz demanding an EU climate
target of 30 percent by 2020 compared to 1990 levels to provide certainty for
investments. Twenty years ago, we didn’t
have large investors challenging corporate self-regulation and a voluntary
approach to sustainability reporting. Now, we do. Indeed, there was a large
coalition of investors and businesses telling governments at Rio+20 that they
need mandatory rules for corporate reporting on their social and environmental
impacts. One of the true tragedies of Rio+20, to me, was that governments
ignored the voices not just of the grassroots or Greenpeace but also of the
likes of Aviva Investors or BM&FBOVESPA
–the only securities,
commodities and futures exchange in Brazil – who were asking for mandatory reporting rules for
corporations. A true pity, as corporations are so far reporting their social and
environmental impacts badly. Bloomberg discovered that only about 24% of the
19,641 companies they researched reported any environmental, social and
governance (ESG) data at all and what data did exist was almost always of poor
quality.

The corporate sector is
increasingly split. And while some are starting to act, some of the most
powerful companies continue to be decisive blockers of a green economy. The
business associations – such as the International Chamber of Commerce – sadly
continue to be dominated by these backward polluters who may claim to be green
and socially responsible, but in reality make big profits from exploiting and
polluting the planet . A recent Greenpeace report, Greenwash+20, shows that
corporations such as Ameria´s Duke Energy talk a good talk while sticking to the most polluting
energy source: coal or that Indonesia´s Asia Pulp and Paper continues to destroy rainforests while running a
massive global advertisement campaign claiming to be green and responsible. The
report also shows that governments still continue to let corporate polluters
run the show because they shy away from regulation, pollution pricing,
accountability and liability – the kind of measures that could change the
calculus and make building a green economy profitable.

Giving corporations a free (or
cheap) ride isn’t cheap for us and our children. KPMG has estimated that the external environmental costs of 11 key
industry sectors were as much as US$ 846 billion in 2010 – an increase of 50%
(!) over the last decade. If companies had to pay for the full environmental
costs of their business, on average they would lose 41 cents for every US$1 in
earnings. Yet, making polluters pay for the impacts they impose on society is strangely
not high on the agenda in a Europe where governments are desperate for cash.

A textbook
example of greenwash is Shell, who for more than 20 years has been touting its
leadership on sustainability, yet is turning its back on renewable energy and
strip mining forests in Canada to access extremely polluting tar sands oil. Shell is also the first 'supermajor‘ oil company to
actively pursue a policy of significant oil exploration in the offshore Arctic.
The company sees this region as the next great oil frontier, saying it has
“significant untapped potential and will play an increasingly important role in
meeting the energy challenge in the future”. Shell senses a clear opportunity
in Alaska, arguing that “much like landing on the moon, it doesn’t hurt to be
first”. The company has confirmed it will return to drill further wells in the
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in the coming years. While Shell confidently tells us
that it has “made numerous plans for dealing with oil in ice”, the company also
admits that the technical and environmental challenges of oil exploration in
the Arctic “are immense”. Specialists believe that “there is really no solution
or method today that we’re aware of that can actually recover [spilt] oil from
the Arctic”. Shell – which was recently responsible for significant oil spills
in Nigeria and the UK – says it will be able to remove up to 90% of any spilled
oil in Alaska. This is an incredible assumption when you consider that the US
Geological Survey estimates recovery levels of 1% to 20% in the Arctic. Only
about 17% of oil was ever recovered after Deepwater Horizon. But not to worry.
Shell proves its environmental credentials by pointing out that it “banned the
use of Styrofoam cups on board any Alaska operating company owned or contracted
vessel in order to assure cups do not blow into the water”.

Cynical statements such as
these show without doubt that – despite the positive initiatives by some businesses
- voluntary action by business alone will never deliver sustainable
development. Indeed, it´s not an either or: Voluntary action is always welcome
and Greenpeace will praise those companies who are making steps in the right
direction. But the evidence is clear that, without clear rules, too many companies
- such as Shell - continue to free-ride on society. While it is wonderful that
more and more businesses are starting to act, the reality is that this is only delivering incremental change. While individual
companies are getting better, global greenhouse gas emissions are rising,
biodiversity in our forests is declining and our oceans are being pillaged and
overfished.

Indeed, the battle to stop laggard
companies such as Shell and the battle to achieve good regulation is one and
the same. It is because governments
put the short term profits of the likes of Shell before the public interest
that we fail to have the regulations we – including progressive businesses who
want to prosper under a new model - need. It is that lack of spine – the
unwillingness for governments to govern
– that makes global Summits like Rio+20 fail.

The Arctic is going to be a
key test case of whether those corporations not yet changing course voluntarily
are allowed to plunder the last corners of the world or are forced to become global
citizens, who respect the needs of our climate and future generations.
Governments need to protect the Arctic from exploitation altogether and in
order to prevent climate change from melting the Arctic, governments must urgently
catalyse a green energy revolution, based on energy efficiency and a massive uptake in
renewable energy. Unlike with other revolutions, there is no reason for
governments to be afraid of this energy revolution. Indeed, it will deliver more
jobs, access to energy for all and cut down CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050,
exactly what is needed for investments now and climate safety in the future.

In order to deliver this kind
of revolutionary change, corporations can’t just be volunteers. We need to deal
with the laggards that are free-riding on the commitments some companies are
starting to implement. To do so, we need global rules for global corporations.
Governments admitted as much at the Johannesburg Earth Summit in 2002 (Rio+10),
when they pledged to „actively promote
corporate accountability“ and develop intergovernmental agreements to do so. Governments don´t like to be
reminded of this pledge, as they have done nothing to implement it since. But, indeed, while
it is heartening to see some businesses pushing for mandatory corporate
reporting, what is needed now more than ever is a global
instrument to ensure full liability for
social and environmental impacts of global corporations. Progressive companies
have nothing to fear from such rules. But only enforceable rules will bring the
laggards to join the 21st century.

For us at Greenpeace,
therefore, the fact that we actively welcome the willingness of some
corporations to act does not lessen our urgent call for clear rules and
penalties for those which try to free-ride and dump external costs on society.
Just as it is unacceptable for tax payers to pay for the reckless gambles of
greedy banks, it is irresponsible that the people of Japan, for example, are
now having to pay for the financial fall-out of TEPCO´s (Tokyo Electric Power)
irresponsible behaviour. It is adding financial insult to environmental injury.
And the opposite should be the case: Whoever damaged people or the environment,
should at the very least know that they will be held to account – including
financially.

It is easy to
despair at the difficulties of getting effective regulation in place and
therefore tempting to hope that corporations on their own will deliver a
liveable future for all. Lack of regulation certainly gives no excuse for
corporations to continue destructive practices and we expect corporations to
take full responsibility for their supply chains and be true leaders in their
field.

But for us as societies and communities to achieve
sustainable development we simply need proper regulation and enforcement. The
„good guys“ will not succeed unless governments helps them to deal with the
„bad guys“ and sets the frameworks we need to a fair and just green economy. It
is heartening that more and more businesses are saying so themselves and are
calling for binding climate targets or corporate reporting rules. Civil society
and progressive corporations working together to deliver the laws we need for
our future is indeed a model to pursue. Together, progressive businesses and
civil society must free our governments from the strangle hold of a small
clique of polluters - such as Duke, APP
or Shell - whose short term interests currentlytrump our collective interests. Europe´s future - our future - depends
on us ensuring that rights for people are delivered through effective rules for
big business. There are no short cuts, but there are test cases, such as the
urgent need to draw a line in the ice in the Arctic and protect it for all
before it is destroyed forever. How many progressive businesses will support us
in ensuring that governments declare a global sanctuary in the Arctic and make
the Arctic off limits for oil and industrial fishing, I wonder? If you are
ready to do so, drop me a line.

Introducing myself, Daniel Mittler

I am the Political Director of Greenpeace International, heading their Political and Business Unit. I am leading a global team of specialists working on issues ranging from protecting the High Seas to disrupting dirty business models and toxic trade deals. We are responsible for internal strategy advice to campaigns and external representation at global political and business fora. I am a member of the Global Program management team and from September 2014 to June 2015 also managed the Actions and Science Units (two of my favourite parts of Greenpeace). I have also served on the senior management team of Greenpeace’s global forest campaign and on the European Executive Committee.

From 1997-2000 I was a researcher at the Bartlett School of Planning at University College London. I was looking at achieving sustainabilty in cities; mainly because I love cities. The year before, I was living in Bonn serving my country by writing press releases for the youth-wing of Friends of the Earth Germany (BUNDjugend).

Berlin, where I have lived - with a couple of breaks (in Oxford and Amsterdam) - since 2000, is now the (other) place I call home. To be precise: Kreuzberg.

I love kayaking, reading, going to the theatre and cinema, hiking, music (I still try to play the cello) - all the usual middle class stuff. I have a way too loud laugh, but at least I manage to laugh. What really excites me is making the world at the same time a more just and greener place - and creating spaces where people can get active. So, do something!